this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
354 points (95.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

42089 readers
457 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 82 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government

Technically, it isn't. As long as you're not being terribly specific about when and how it should be done, and as long as you're not 'inciting' people to do it.

But if you want to argue -- in a more abstract and academic context -- that the US government should be violently overthrown, that's perfectly legal and well protected under the 1st amendment.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I really hope no one takes it into their own hands to destroy all data centers and the billionaire oligarchs that own them. They'd be an absolute hero probably! Can't have that oh no.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Haha this is there sort of thing that got me permabanned from Reddit! 🀣

[–] BannedVoice@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Same! I got permabanned for saying we should slash tires of ICE agent vehicles so they can’t kidnap people and drive off. Also the reason for the username here.

load more comments (3 replies)

Well its true ! I'd really hate for someone on the right side of history to accidentally destroy these data centers and all the bought off politicians responsible for them! That'd be really bad. It would be a detriment to the shareholders which we adore

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago
[–] IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think they just censor free speech via private companies. Like the way they do their spying and gangstalking, and proxie wars. I don't think our place as American HUMANS is natural or where we would be if authenticity and genuinism was a part of Americas governing culture.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 24 points 1 month ago (5 children)
[–] marighost@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago

Rest in peace Mr. Moore.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It is not illegal in the slightest as we are protected by the first amendment

"Let's overthrow the government"

I'm not going to jail over some random remarks

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Them amendments are so well protected too. Didnt the government gun down a nurse for excercising their right to bear arms freedom of assembly?

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The government has executed scores of people for exercising their right to bare arms.

Turns out you only have the rights the police are willing to respect. Which means you don't actually have any.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You put it in quotes. Like a big ole scaredycat

Let's overthrow the government, hang all the billionaires from highway overpasses, and set anyone who resists us on fire.

...

In... In Minecraft

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

Let's overthrow the government

[–] themaninblack@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

But imminent incitement to violence will get you got

[–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I always thought the 2nd was so the government had a militia to call upon should we be invaded.

[–] justdaveisfine@piefed.social 15 points 1 month ago

It is, mostly.

It was basically the state's right to have an armed militia so that they may remain a free state.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It gives the states the ability to have their own local military as well as private citizens the right to own weapons. Both of these were things the colonial power had outlawed prior to the revolution. The idea was to explicitly list things the previous tyrannical government had done to ensure the new government could not do the same thing. Now language and technology changes which leads to the current debate on gun rights in the USA.

[–] IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Like isn't state guard a thing? Thats sound more like what they meant.

[–] gdog05@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

That is exactly what I would argue. And many others of course. That's the "well regulated" purpose. They didn't mean a bunch of fucking idiots with a fetish. They meant the people could always band together to fight for their freedoms. Because the nation didn't have a standing army at the time. It was a volunteer militia that gained the freedoms to begin with.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

It's hard to read because of how it's written, but you likely have to read it backwards. People can bear arms, why, Because states may need a skilled well regulated militia.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daannii@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn't about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.

"Bear arms" means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.

Owning a gun does little against tyranny.

But a state militia does.

That's what it actually meant.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doesn't seems like it say "firearm" as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If not for that comma this would be a lot easier to understand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spuriousMoot@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Owning and carrying guns is not for overthrowing the government. That's absurd. It is however very profitable to convince people that's the case if you happen to be selling guns.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PragmaticOne@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Could you just please get on and do it. Get rid of that orange twat.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Sorry, I don't wanna get accused of being a "CCP Spy trying to sabotage destabalize America" and then DHS will declare my family as foreign terrorists, then have ICE raid my house and deport my dad, a non-citizen.

Cuz in this country, whenever a non-white person does something, everyone who looks like that is getting targeted in hate crimes...

Then the entire Chinese diaspora community would be like: "Why did this loser have to stir the pot and ruin it for the rest of us?"


This problem on the white dudes who voted him in.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Just to bring everyone up to speed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the whole spiel about a militia is basically irrelevant. Source: Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (2008).

Love it or hate it, them's the facts. That said, plenty of other decisions have been overturned at a later date. Like the one that made black people less than equal to whites in Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the endorsement of segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. So things might change at some point.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Even if it wasn't written down as a law before hand, a failed coup would still end up being considered illegal by the government that won against the coup.

Just as violently rising up against tyranny doesn't need to be explicity written down as legal for it to become legal if the revolution succeeds.

History and laws are written by the victorious.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Advocating is not illegal; inciting is.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Unless you're an oligarch of course. Then you can J6, Doge, destroy half the Whitehouse, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Danarchy@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 month ago

It’s perfectly fine to advocate for a silent but violent overthrow. They can have my beans when they pull my cold, dead finger

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago
[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Citizens united made it probable that foreign governments would act through intermediaries to pay for US policy against the American peoples interests

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government,

if you fail, it is.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It really depends.

Merely saying that the administration needs to be guillotined isn't illegal because its protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.

However, such rhetoric loses such protection when it starts to manifest a particularity. So, saying "Guillotine Republicans because they fucking deserve it" is protected. Statements like "Guillotine Republican X at his address Y an Z p.m." is not.

Jan6 be there, will be wild

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 3 points 1 month ago

That's news to their earliest founding document

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

right to revolution

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

is a duty. So, their declaration of independence is illegal?

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Weapons don't know and don't care what you do with them. A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution. A strike of a knife while cutting cabbage is the same as a strike while chopping up your local equivalent of a secret policeman.

One could argue a hammer is meant to facilitate acts of rebellion but in reality it doesn't know jack shit what it's meant for, it's just happy to be there.

Also it's legal to own weapons/illegal to advocate for violent overthrow in many, many countries. It's the intentions that matter.

[–] DougPiranha42@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think what OP is referring to is that many supporters of β€œgun rights” like to use the argument that the second amendment is key to the freedom of America because an armed populace cannot be controlled by an authoritarian government. I don’t particularly care for that argument, but if you run with it, it would make sense that the right of the populace to organize armed rebellion is just as important as their right to own and carry weapons.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

I wonder what would happen if the second amendment was about proper organization of that "militia" instead. It's often the deciding factor between success and failure when it comes to rebellion, even when you're outgunned.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago (10 children)

A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution.

90% of the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is what you point it at.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I kick a man to near death do I get charged with assault with deadly weapon for wearing shoes?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] devolution@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Shhhhhh stop trying to bring logic into this...

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί